Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> Is there actually a good reason, why the autotools are distributed as
> separate packages (autoconf, automake, libtool, m4)? (Maybe even
> pkg-config, but I still don't yet know exactly whether it is good for
> me.)
Hmm, why not? Isn't it good general practice to split up
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 01:04:31AM CET:
> On 02/23/2011 05:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > The question "libtool reorders link fags" seems to have a
> > spelling error in the last word. It's not obvious to me what
> > word is meant.
>
> flags
Fixed now, thanks for the report.
Ralf
On 02/23/2011 05:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> The question "libtool reorders link fags" seems to have a
> spelling error in the last word. It's not obvious to me what
> word is meant.
flags
--
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
si
The question "libtool reorders link fags" seems to have a
spelling error in the last word. It's not obvious to me what
word is meant.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
developer might not yet have that automake version.
It doesn't really seem any worse than _any_ potential tool
incompatibility problem -- compiler version, library
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:17 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> > Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
> > only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
> > developer might not yet have that automake version.
>
> It doesn't really
Hello,
* Miles Bader wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:17:29AM CET:
> Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> > Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
> > only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
> > developer might not yet have that automake version.
>
> It do
Hello Ralf,
* Ralf Hemmecke wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:30:21PM CET:
> I'm just reading the current FAQ under
>
> 1.3 Where can I get the latest versions of these tools?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#Where-can-I-get-the-latest-versions-of-these-tools_003f
>
* Ralf Hemmecke wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:41:20PM CET:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#How-do-I-add-a-question-to-this-FAQ_003f
>
> Do you think, it would be a good idea to just open up a git repo (on
> github.com, for example) and put the autotools-faq.texi fi
Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
> only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
> developer might not yet have that automake version.
It doesn't really seem any worse than _any_ potential tool
incompatibility problem -
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
> irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
> should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course, the project
> might also compile oth
On 02/22/2011 11:35 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course,
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#How-do-I-add-a-question-to-this-FAQ_003f
Do you think, it would be a good idea to just open up a git repo (on
github.com, for example) and put the autotools-faq.texi file there?
Or is there already a git repo for this?
Ralf
I'm just reading the current FAQ under
1.3 Where can I get the latest versions of these tools?
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#Where-can-I-get-the-latest-versions-of-these-tools_003f
Wouldn't it be useful to give a little script that installs know-good
combinations
Glenn Morris wrote (on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 at 16:08 -0500):
> Maybe you could turn on the Mailman subject_prefix option for your
> lists?
Actually, that might interfere with how debbugs recognizes replies to
existing bug reports that get sent to eg bug-automake rather than
###@debbugs. It might cau
> > However, my biggest concern is that right now, I filter both
> > autoconf and automake messages into the same mail folder, but
> > debbugs anonymizes which list a bug is being reported against
> > (that is, the To: is rewritten as ###@debbugs.gnu.org, so there is
> > no longer any mention of '
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:24:01PM CET:
> On 02/13/2011 11:12 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 1) Autoconf and Libtool should also use debbugs.
> >
> > bug-automake has switched a few months ago, and I find it helpful to
> > avoid losing reports. Given that we never hav
On 02/13/2011 11:12 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
> the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
> example. So, t
On 02/19/2011 06:50 PM, Russell Shaw wrote:
> Looking through a ./configure script, i see lots of things being done
> with file descriptors >&5 and >&6. What is going on here? eg:
The example only showed use of >&5.
> eval ac_try_echo="\"\$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: $ac_try_echo\""
> $as_echo "$
On 20/02/11 06:10, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Russell,
* Russell Shaw wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00:14AM CET:
I'd ask more about how the internals of ./configure and autoconf works.
Can you formulate more specific questions?
And questions on how to make bison get handled without being
Hi Russell,
* Russell Shaw wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00:14AM CET:
> I'd ask more about how the internals of ./configure and autoconf works.
Can you formulate more specific questions?
> And questions on how to make bison get handled without being forced to
> mimic standard yacc.
I've adde
Hello everyone,
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:12:02PM CET:
> 2) Autotools should have a FAQ document.
I've done a brain dump now, here's a rough initial version:
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html and
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools
On 14/02/11 05:12, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
Hello everyone,
I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
example. So, two proposals:
1
[ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
Hello everyone,
I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
example. So, two proposals:
1) Autoconf and Libtool should also use debbug
24 matches
Mail list logo
